Whats with this upsurge in analogue photography ?

thebigfella

thebigfella

Messages
4
Edit My Images
No
Would be interested to know people's thoughts on why there is an upsurge in analogue photography. As a pro using a Canon 1DS Mk ll for my professional work, I have just purchased a mint Canon A-1 and I love it. I'd forgotten just how nice these things were to handle and oh, the sound of that shutter. It makes you realise just how heavy today's pro gear is and yes, I may even sneak a few studio shots or wedding images out of it. Somehow it seems to have lit my fire again and the darkroom is already waiting !!
 
I think a lot has to do with people wanting to actually experience the full photographic experience rather than using the latest gear that does everything for you.

There is something about the classic film kit that I like, compared with modern kit where everything is menu driven and relying on LCD displays to make adjustments.
 
Being someone who has come to digital from film I suppose unless I'm using full frame I'm dissapointed with digital kit in that the viewfinders are dark and small, but I do like my 1d and 5d, they are to me almost the highpoint in digital cameras (although the 5D3 looks great), BUT we all know that film has a greater tonal range, a subtlety of colour change (or B&W gradation) that tbh digital cant even get close to at present. Add in 36 shots maximum (or 12 on my 645) and thinking becomes a necessary part of the process as opposed to spray and pray. Combined with that is the actual film itself, tactile, physically part of the process which you just dont get with digital. Chemicals that cause film to create an image, the smell, the feel of wet chemicals, the whole alchemy of it all you just dont get. So its hardware and software thats all just different and gives you a different experience.
And that's before you event get into the darkroom :)
Ramble over.
Matt
 
I dunno - I just enjoy taking photographs - and I like good engineering. I've more film cameras, primarily because I can afford good engineering on old technology.


(don't know where the pinhole holga and the FED-3b fit into that of course... :LOL:)
 
there is no such thing as ''analogue photography''


discuss
 
Everybody has a different reason/s for shooting/getting in to film, we can only document our own personal feelings on the subject.

I shot some film and came to the conclusion that digital ain't all that, it makes images just fine but it doesn't make photos.
There is a subtle difference between a photo and an image, but the method used to make them is fundamentally different.
Were it not for this fundamental difference, I guess I'd still be pro film but it would be just a different method of making the same thing.
I prefer to shoot film, but I will shoot digital if you pay me...:)
I suppose my thoughts are just one of hundreds of possible reasons why anyone would want to shoot it instead of/as well as..digital, I'd find it odd that any photographer/picture maker would not want to at least try it.
 
Maybe there is no such thing as analogue photography but it is a term commonly used these days. I suggest you have a look at www.apug.org for some clarity.
 
PS......there is no such thing as Father Christmas either but it generates plenty of sales each year.
 
I cant say i felt terribly welcome when i went in there for a bit, they seem to have a thing about film scanning being horrible and sacrilage. So i buggered off and never went back :D
 
thebigfella said:
Maybe there is no such thing as analogue photography but it is a term commonly used these days. I suggest you have a look at www.apug.org for some clarity.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not.. APUG are not too keen on the scanning of images, something to with the way the digital influence contaminates the aura of the souls captured on the negative.
 
Alastair said:
I'd rather not.. APUG are not too keen on the scanning of images, something to with the way the digital influence contaminates the aura of the souls captured on the negative.
Click to expand...

erm well maybe but I thought it's because they have a sister forum for scanning.
 
Well, I gotta say, the clue is in the title @ APUG.

It seems a bit up your own arse when you consider that without digital something, the website wouldn't even exist, but then there are plenty of forums that discuss both.
 
excalibur2 said:
erm well maybe but I thought it's because they have a sister forum for scanning.
Click to expand...

I shoot film, scan and post-process digitally. I quite frankly don't have the patience to post different questions on different forums that relate to different steps in the same process. Seperate forums is just snobbery.

One forum for necromancy, one forum for voodoo.. but however you skin and pickle the corpse, we're all just breathing life into a medium that the rest of the world regards as dead and buried. It's just that the long-bearded wizards in the pointy hats don't want the spells typed and printed in case the words wear out.
 
That's just your opinion Alastair, APUG have their own, gotta respect that
 
Initially I shot pro nikon digital gear, I was shooting weddings and portraits and hating the whole affair. My reason for starting behind the lens was my love of fashion photography, so when I switched the emphasise back to fashion last year, shooting what I enjoyed, I wanted the best quality I could get.

So alas the toss up between affordability and quality. A scanned 6x7 blows away anything I could afford digitally. So enter my rz67 purchase. Now not only do I love the quality, but I develop my negs at home and more recently, started printing b&w. Wet printing is a revelation to me, digital can do one.

I prefer the quality, the tonality, the workflow, the way of working, the lack of time in front of a bloody computer!
 
How the hell is film "analogue"? Analogue implies the information is being stored or transmitted in an electrical format of some type, which it's not.
 
redddraggon said:
How the hell is film "analogue"? Analogue implies the information is being stored or transmitted in an electrical format of some type, which it's not.
Click to expand...

What's in a name? who cares?......... "analogue" is the word used for the old type of photography.
 
joxby said:
That's just your opinion Alastair, APUG have their own, gotta respect that
Click to expand...
I know, it's their playground and I respect their rules.. but it can be so frustrating, they have such useful information, very knowledgable members, but can manage to shut out newcomers so very effectively.
 
excalibur2 said:
What's in a name? who cares?......... "analogue" is the word used for the old type of photography.
Click to expand...

Who cares?

Well anyone who cares about avoiding sloppy Americanisms should.

Why does one need to use incorrect terminology when there's already plenty of correct terminology in usage?
 
redddraggon said:
Who cares?

Well anyone who cares about avoiding sloppy Americanisms should.

Why does one need to use incorrect terminology when there's already plenty of correct terminology in usage?
Click to expand...




what, you mean like the difference between good dof and shallow dof....:D
 
redddraggon said:
Who cares?

Well anyone who cares about avoiding sloppy Americanisms should.

Why does one need to use incorrect terminology when there's already plenty of correct terminology in usage?
Click to expand...


Well I agree about Americans ruining the English language, and they can call it analog if they like :LOL:
I've used the word "film" lenses and "digital" lenses and some moan at that ;) and have replied that they are just lenses, but to me it differentiates between old and new.
 
joxby said:
what, you mean like the difference between good dof and shallow dof....:D
Click to expand...

I presume you are talking a thread where I stood up for a new poster who used the term "good dof". A newcomer to photography getting to grips with the terminology using "good dof" is different to some yanks making up pretentious and fallacious terminology.
 
redddraggon said:
How the hell is film "analogue"? Analogue implies the information is being stored or transmitted in an electrical format of some type, which it's not.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
 
Alastair said:
I know, it's their playground and I respect their rules.. but it can be so frustrating, they have such useful information, very knowledgable members, but can manage to shut out newcomers so very effectively.
Click to expand...


I know what you mean but although I don't use APUG, don't even think I'm a member, I respect their ideals.
Hell, if their membership is anything to go by, a lot of other people do too.
I guess you have to be already hooked on film to get much out of APUG, in which case you probably aren't a newcomer.
 
redddraggon said:
I presume you are talking a thread where I stood up for a new poster who used the term "good dof".
Click to expand...

I don't think he needs anyone to stand up for him, it was an observation not a criticism, what he could do with is someone to point out mistakes in his terminology, so at least he'd know what he was talking about in future.

redddraggon said:
A newcomer to photography getting to grips with the terminology using "good dof" is different to some yanks making up pretentious and fallacious terminology.
Click to expand...


rrrright

:D
 
Last edited:
I'll respond to the original post rather than some of the additional things that have been brought up subsequently. Firstly, digital is great. Lots of us started out on digital, or found photography via digitals, and many of us shoot digital alongside film and enjoy getting the best out of both mediums.

Me personally? It just feels great to use some older film gear. Stuff that is engineered superbly is an absolute joy to use, and whilst I find my digital SLR relatively intuitive it lacks an elegance that I find in many film cameras. I've got a K1000 which is and was a rather crude camera even when it was released, but it keeps it simple and sometimes the best images come from the simplicity and lack of menu settings.

Having a tactile medium is also enjoyable, and the processes beyond the camera with developing and printing enhance the appeal for me.

As to why everyone else is also interested? Gear is cheap, digital has been around long enough for people to know what they like and what they can't get out of it, and the ease at which you can get information on film photography on the internet expands by the day. A quick search will find you what beginner camera, what film, where to develop etc.
 
menthel said:
Blimey, everyone been drinking neat rodinal in here tonight? ;)
Click to expand...

Haven't had a proper drink for over a month now - think that's the source of my problem :LOL:

That said - can we drop the "analogue photography" stuff now - or move it into another thread and get back to addressing the OP's core question...

pretty please.
 
menthel said:
Blimey, everyone been drinking neat rodinal in here tonight? ;)
Click to expand...

*Looks at the empty bottles of Neofin blue and the lines of ID-11 on the desk shiftily* :wacky:

To the OP, Why do i shoot film? Mainly because it's more fun, i like a challenge. If i wanted easy i would get a point and shoot, but here i am with a medium format body with no metering and no autofocus and having a whale of a time with it. Sure it's unpredictable but its all part of the fun.

Another thing which appeals to me is the tactile nature of the cameras and the precision they were made to, ive got 40 year old cameras which work just as well as the day they were bought and still produce stonking images. Where else am i going to be able to get 60 Megapixel images out of medium format without coughing up £50,000 for a brand new Hasselblad digital camera.

Shooting film has made me more considerate as a digital photographer, i don't spray and pray any more because im used to thinking about using about shooting with a roll of 120 film where i get 10 shots a roll. It definitely makes you think more about whether its worth pressing the shutter.

I think many of the denizens of the Film and Conventional forum will agree with at least part of this

Rob
 
TheBigYin said:
Haven't had a proper drink for over a month now - think that's the source of my problem :LOL:
Click to expand...

Is that a shout for a Travelling hip flask thread ???

TheBigYin said:
That said - can we drop the "analogue photography" stuff now - or move it into another thread and get back to addressing the OP's core question...

pretty please.
Click to expand...


sorry..:)
 
TheBigYin said:
Haven't had a proper drink for over a month now - think that's the source of my problem :LOL:
Click to expand...

Is that a shout for a Travelling hip flask thread ???
Click to expand...

Naw, to be honest John, i've been on a bit of a health kick - trying to get back into riding the bike, and needed to loose lots and lots of weight to do so... So - I'm 8 stone down from last july, and TBH, the dieting's so hard I can't face to drink back all the hard won calories :LOL:
 
I use film because I adore the process. Between buying & loading a roll of film, exposing, developing, contact printing & 'fine' printing, it really feels like something I've made as opposed to something I've asked a computer to make for me. The cameras are relatively cheap, there is a lot of them & they are all very different (unlike digital). I'd find it very hard to do street photography & landscapes with the same camera, which is probably why I have so bloody many! Plus it's a good excuse to be alone in a dark room for hours on end listening to Zappa records!

Oh, ID-11 tastes good too. If it wasn't for that I'd have gone digital by now :D
 
Probably same reason people still drive vintage cars or listen to vinyl, it's loads more fun :)
I also like to get away from the work camera and shoot pictures in a less sterile way, nothing beats a 16x20 fb print.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I agree about Americans ruining the English language, and they can call it analog if they like :LOL:
Click to expand...
Not that I watch American programmes, why do they always refer to Video recordings as tapes? Maybe they are still using VHS :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top